Probasco v. Bouyon
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 168; Taylor?;. Carpenter, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) Ch. 617; s. e., Am. T.-M. Cas. 14, 82; Stone v. Colan, Am. T.-M. Cas. 115 ; Browne on Trade-Marks, 94, secs. 32, 35, 52, 66, 144; Howe v. Howe Machine Co., 50 Barb.; s. c., Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 168; Taylor?;. Carpenter, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) Ch. 617; s. e., Am. T.-M. Cas. 14, 82; Stone v. Colan, Am. T.-M. Cas. 115 ; Browne on Trade-Marks, 94, secs. 32, 35, 52, 66, 144; Howe v. Howe Machine Co., 50 Barb.; s. c., Am. T.-M. Cas. 421, 427; Croft v. Lay, 7 Beav. 89 ; s. c., Am; T.-M. Cas. 649, 651; Upton on Trade-Marks, 22, 23 ; Browne on Trade-Marks, secs. 39, 40, 41', 516, 395; Stonebreaker v. Stonebreaker, 33 Md. 252, 267 ; Beard v. Downs, 6 Ind. 200; Coats v. Holbrook, Am. T.-M. Cas. 30, and following; Bradley?;.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
Tin's is a bill in equity, filed by plaintiff against defendants, wherein he alleges that he was for-some years in partnership with defendant Oakes in the business of manufacturing and selling candies called in the trade “ Oakes’ Candies,” “ Oakes’ Pure Home-made Candies,” etc., which candies were made, put up, and sold by them alone, and were a great source of profit; that the name was used as a trade-mark, and was the property of the firm, and so recognized by dealers; that he afterwards purchased, and now owns, the good-will and franchises of the firm, and the exclusive use of the name and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Young v. StonebreakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
3Cited by5 opinions
- Russia Cement Co. v. LePageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Frazer v. Frazer Lubricator Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Skinner v. OakesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Oakes v. TonsmterreU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Alabama · 1883
- Frazer v. Frazer Lubricator Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1886